linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: page_vma_mapped

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <82f6838b-ea38-2030-a8c6-8d2defc2e6@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jun 2021 15:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Wang Yugui <wangyugui@...-tech.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] mm: page_vma_mapped_walk(): use page for
 pvmw->page

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 11:55:22AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > @@ -234,9 +233,9 @@ bool page_vma_mapped_walk(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw)
> > >  			return true;
> > >  next_pte:
> > >  		/* Seek to next pte only makes sense for THP */
> > > -		if (!PageTransHuge(pvmw->page) || PageHuge(pvmw->page))
> > > +		if (!PageTransHuge(page) || PageHuge(page))
> > >  			return not_found(pvmw);
> > > -		end = vma_address_end(pvmw->page, pvmw->vma);
> > > +		end = vma_address_end(page, pvmw->vma);
> > >  		do {
> > >  			pvmw->address += PAGE_SIZE;
> > >  			if (pvmw->address >= end)
> > 
> > I see two more pvmw->page in this loop. Do you leave them here as the code
> > will be rewritten later in the patchset?

That would be tacky; but I cannot see them (apart from in check_pte()).

> 
> I think they've got removed in previous series ("[PATCH v2 04/10] mm/thp: fix
> vma_address() if virtual address below file offset").

Yes, I think you've found the right explanation.

> 
> Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>

Thanks,
Hugh